1. Dispute over whether non-resident or not ordinarily resident partners of a registered firm can exclude their share of the firm's foreign income from total income. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1948 Supreme(SC) 86
Privy Council At Nag.
Sir John Beaumont, Sir Madhavan Nair, Reid, Morton of Henryton, Justice Lords Uthwatt, JJ.
Badridas Daga, and another -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces, Lucknow -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 87 of 1947
Decided On : 20-12-1948
Advocates Appeared:
Sigh Commissioner for India, Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., B. Sen, J.M. Tucker, R.P. Hills, Roland Burrows
Sigh Commissioner for India, Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., B. Sen, J.M. Tucker, R.P. Hills, Roland Burrows
Important Points
In the assessment of partners of a registered resident firm, the partner's share of the firm's income must be included in their total income as per specific assessment provisions, overriding general residency-based exclusions for income accruing outside the resident country.
Subject
Tax Law - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Income-tax Act - Sections 4(1) and 23(5)(a) - Assessment of partners in a registered firm - Total income of non-resident and not ordinarily resident partners - Inclusion of share of firm's income - Whether partners are entitled to exclude the proportion of the firm's income which accrued outside the resident country - Provisions of Section 23(5)(a) specifically require the inclusion of the partner's share of the firm's income in the partner's assessment without providing for deductions based on the source of the firm's income - General provisions of Section 4 regarding non-residents are subject to other provisions of the Act and cannot override the specific mechanism of assessment for partners in a registered firm (Paras 5, 7, 8, 11).
(B) Interpretation of Statutes - "Subject to the provisions of this Act" - General provisions must be read in harmony with specific provisions; where a specific section governs the assessment of a particular type of income, it prevails over general limitations on liability (Para 7).
Facts of the case:
Partners of a registered resident firm, one being not ordinarily resident and the other being a non-resident, were assessed on their entire share of the firm's income. The firm earned profits both within and outside the resident country. The partners contended that the portion of their share corresponding to income accrued outside the resident country should be excluded from their total income based on their residency status and the general provisions defining total income.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the specific provisions governing the assessment of partners in a registered firm do not allow for the exclusion of income based on its source outside the resident country, regardless of the partner's residency status.
Issues: Whether a partner who is either non-resident or resident but not ordinarily resident is entitled to exclude from their total income the proportionate share of a resident registered firm's profits which accrue or arise outside the resident country.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 23(5)(a) mandates the inclusion of a partner's share of a registered firm's income in their individual assessment. Since this section provides no deduction for income arising outside the resident country, and since Section 4 is "subject to the provisions of this Act," the specific assessment mechanism for partners overrides the general residency-based exclusions. Implementing the partners' view would create undue administrative complexity and practical difficulties, particularly in cases where the firm incurred losses in foreign business.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Interpretation of Statutes - "Subject to the provisions of this Act" - General provisions must be read in harmony with specific provisions; where a specific section governs the assessment of a particular type of income, it prevails over general limitations on liability (Para 7).
Facts of the case:
Partners of a registered resident firm, one being not ordinarily resident and the other being a non-resident, were assessed on their entire share of the firm's income. The firm earned profits both within and outside the resident country. The partners contended that the portion of their share corresponding to income accrued outside the resident country should be excluded from their total income based on their residency status and the general provisions defining total income.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the specific provisions governing the assessment of partners in a registered firm do not allow for the exclusion of income based on its source outside the resident country, regardless of the partner's residency status.
Issues: Whether a partner who is either non-resident or resident but not ordinarily resident is entitled to exclude from their total income the proportionate share of a resident registered firm's profits which accrue or arise outside the resident country.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 23(5)(a) mandates the inclusion of a partner's share of a registered firm's income in their individual assessment. Since this section provides no deduction for income arising outside the resident country, and since Section 4 is "subject to the provisions of this Act," the specific assessment mechanism for partners overrides the general residency-based exclusions. Implementing the partners' view would create undue administrative complexity and practical difficulties, particularly in cases where the firm incurred losses in foreign business.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether limitations on liability for non-residents under Section 4 of the Income-tax Act override specific assessment provisions for partnership income under Section 23. (Para 7 )
3. Section 4 is subject to other provisions of the Act; Section 23(5)(a) provides no deduction for foreign profits for non-resident partners. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Provisions governing partnership income assessment under Section 23 are not overridden by the general income definitions in Section 4. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed. (Para 12 )
6. Does the general definition of total income for non-residents under Section 4 override specific assessment rules for partnership income under Section 23?
No. Section 4 begins with the words Subject to the provisions of this Act, meaning it must be read as a whole. Specific provisions for partnership income assessment under Section 23 cannot be modified to allow deductions not explicitly provided in the text. (Para 7 )
7. Are non-resident partners of a registered firm entitled to exclude their share of profits accruing outside British India from their total income?
No. Under Section 23(5)(a), the share of a partner in a registered firm is included in that partner's individual assessment, and the Act provides no provision for deduction based on the profits having arisen outside British India. (Para 5 , 8 )
8. What practical difficulties would arise if non-resident partners could exclude foreign shares of partnership income?
It would require the Income-tax Officer to determine the proportion of firm income accruing outside British India, which is not required by Section 18, and would create significant complications in cases where the firm incurred losses in foreign business. (Para 9 , 10 )
Lord Reid.:-
The appellants in this case were, during the material time, partners of the firm of Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand which carried on business both within British India and elsewhere. Each appellant had a quarter share in the firm. The firm was a registered firm resident in British India within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act. The first appellant was not ordinarily resident and the second appellant was not resident in British India within the meaning of that Act. A considerable part of the firm's income arose or accrued outside British India and was not brought into or received in British India. The question in the present case shortly stated is whether the appellants are bound to include in their total incomes for the purpose of Indian income-tax the whole of their shares of the firm's income or whether they are entitled to exclude a proportion of those shares corresponding to the proportion of the firm's income which arose or accrued outside British India.
[2] The appellants were assessed to income, tax for the year 1939-40 by the Income-tax Officer, Nagpur, in amounts which included the whole of their shares of the firm's income for the previous year. They appealed unsuccessfully to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra, They then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bombay Bench). This appeal was also unsuccessful and the appellants requested the Tribunal to state a case for reference to the High Court. The Tribunal made a joint reference to the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur by stating one case which covered the appeals of both appellants. The questions referred to the High Court were:
"(1) Where the total income of a resident and registered firm of Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand has been computed by including in it income profits and gains accruing or arising to it without British India in accordance with the provisions of S. 4 (1) (b), Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, and is thereafter apportioned among its partners for inclusion in their individual assessments under S. 23 (5) (a) of the Act, whether Seth Badridas Daga, who is a 'resident but not ordinarily resident' partner of the resident firm, is entitled to treat his proportionate share of the profits so included as profits accruing or arising to him outside British India so as to entitle him to the benefit of the second proviso to S. 4 (1) of the Act?
(2) Where the total income of a resident and registered firm of Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand has been computed by including in it income profits and gains accruing or arising to it without British India in accordance with the provisions of S. 4 (1) (b), Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, and is thereafter apportioned among its partners for inclusion in their individual assessments under S. 23 (5) (a) of the Act, whether Seth Ramnath Daga, who is a ' non-resident' partner of the resident firm, is entitled to exclude from his total income such proportionate share of the profits of the said firm which accrue or arise to it without British India, under S. 4 (1) (c) of the Act?"
[3] On 11th February 1944, the High Court at Nagpur made an order answering both these questions in the negative. The present appeal is against that order, leave to appeal having been granted by order of the High Court dated 26th October 1945.
[4] The decision of this case depends on the interpretation of certain sections of the Indian Income-tax Act, including amendments made by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act 1939, and earlier amending Acts.
[5] It will be convenient to begin with S. 23 which deals with assessment. Some confusion arises from the fact that in the Act the words
"assessment" and "assessee" are used in different places with different meanings. Section 2 (2) defines "assessee" as "a person by whom income-tax is payable", but the context in S. 23 makes it clear that down at least to the middle of sub-s. (5) (a) " assess " and "assessment" refer primarily to the computation of the amo
